Re: The anatomy of plagiarism that was made by authors of "Anchor Modeling"

From: vldm10 <>
Date: Tue, 5 May 2015 06:06:33 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <>

Authors of " Anchor modeling" have plagiarized an enormous amount from my papers and very important parts from my papers.
I wrote about these plagiarisms in three big threads on this user group. These are the following threads: "The original version", "some information about anchor modeling" and "The anatomy of plagiarism that was made by the authors of Anchor Modeling ". Readers who are interested in more details, they can find these details in the aforementioned threads . In this post I'll put together in one place a list of only the most important plagiarisms.

My papers are presented on my website and on this user group. The authors of "Anchor modeling" plagiarized the following from my papers:

  1. The idea of division of database theory into two prats. Note that existing database theories did not implement the classification of the theory into two parts. It was my idea.
  2. Special theory about databases which work only with the current state. These databases do not work with changes. I named these databases - Simple db. Authors of "Anchor modeling" plagiarized this idea so that they introduced "static and historized" data structures for attributes and ties.
  3. Special theory about General databases . In "anchor modeling" these databases were called historized (attributes and ties). In my thread "some information about anchor modeling" at this user group, in my post from November 13, 2013, I presented some of problems that General db can solve.
  4. The idea that Simple db and General db only work with the entities and relationships, rather than as Relational model.
  5. Identifiers of entities have been defined in my Simple Form. Anchor modeling uses surrogates. Surrogates are identifiers of entities from my Simple Form. Here is plagiarizing my idea of the identifier of an entity. This means that "anchor key" is a simple key, an identifier, satisfies my Procedure A (Procedures A is below in the text). However anchorsurrogates can be applied to perhaps 2% of databases .
  6. They plagiarized various types of time and "metadata". Note that I have introduced all these concepts much earlier than the authors of "Anchor modeling" published the same results. In addition, my papers were discussed in details in this user group, for a period of several years. Note that in my papers do not exist undefined data sructures as "metadata". In my papers was introduced and defined the concept of knowledge. This knowledge better and more generally defines these terms than "metadata".
  7. My theory about states is plagiarized from the mentioned authors.
  8. They plagiarized my identifiers of states, that is, they have introduced my identifiers of states as theirs. The identifiers of states are the most important part of my theory of states.
  9. The authors of anchor modeling plagiarized the mapping between data models. This plagiarism is done in such a way, that they used my theory of states of entities and relationships in the mapping. Formally, this plagiarism is done by using identifiers of states.
  10. Authors of "Anchor modeling" plagiarized the idea, theory and technique of "history", which was done in my paper. I'm the only one who gave a solution for the atomic data structures. They also plagiarized my atomic structures.
      Note that E. Codd tried to get a solution for atomic structures in his paper RM / T.
      Note that Date & Darwen also tried to get a solution for the atomic structures, replacing 
      the name "atomic structures" with the following text "6NF".
      Note that Codd and Date & Darwen were unsuccessful in this attempt to obtain solutions 
      for atomic structures.
      Note that authors of "Anchor modeling" used in their paper surrogates, similar to Codd.
      Note that authors of "Anchor modeling" put "6NF" in the title of their award-winning
All that the authors of "anchor modeling" are not plagiarized, which is their original work, that is wrong. In my thread "some information about anchor modeling" in my post on 1 April, 2013, I presented the errors in parts of "anchor modeling" that are not plagiarized.
You can also find many other mistakes that are mentioned in these three threads, which I mentioned at the beginning of this post. In my opinion, these are very serious mistakes

Here, in one particular whole, I will show how the authors of "Anchor modeling" have done a scandalous plagiarism, of very important things, by using the name "anchor".

Plagiarism, which is hidden under the name of "Anchor"

In my thread "The original version" at this user group, on May 26, 2010. I presented the procedure, which I have named "Procedure A" :

" (a)
The main part of solving "temporal", "historical" and other complex databases consists of two sub-steps:
1. Constructing an identifier of an entity or relationship. 2. Connecting all changes of states of one entity (or relationship) to the identifier of this entity (or relationship). "

People have always held that a name denotes a certain entity, although this entity has been changed many times. But the following problem has always existed: How an entity which has changed to another entity is, in fact, the same entity. This problem is solved in my paper "Some ideas about a new data model" from 2005 - 4 and 5 years before the authors of anchor modeling published papers. In my paper I gave the corresponding procedures, constructions and semantics for solving this problem. This my solution, I was explaining intensively on this user group, for months. This problem is solved theoretically and practicaly in my paper.

The mentioned solution is important also for others fields, for example for philosophy, logic and semantics. (see for example: Ship of Theseus ). My point here is that this is a plagiarism of a large scale, because the authors of the anchor modeling are plagiarized procedure that solves a problem that is of great interest in several scientific disciplines.

Anchor modeling uses the schema which is given in Procedure A; it uses both of the following sub-steps:
1. constructing an identifier of an entity. 2. Connecting all changes of one entity to the identifier of this entity.

To be convincing in their plagiarism, authors of Anchor modeling have given a new name to entity from my procedures A. This name is given according to following part of the Procedures A: "Connecting all changes of one entity (or relationship) to the identifier of this entity (or relationship). "

In this way they want to say, "Anchor Key" ties all changes from the corresponding entity. Term anchor represent misunderstanding and it is nonsense. As I wrote, here we have Procedure A.

In ProcedureA is possible precisely to work with states. For example, I can make a binary structure, which has two columns, one column keeps identifiers of the entities, the other one keeps the identifiers of states. In this binary structure I have the main skeleton. To the remaining parts (to other binary structures) I can access quickly by using the identifier of the corresponding state. In this way l can access data by using any data element, not only by "key". For example, I can access on the birth date and then by using the corresponding identifier of the state I can access to main skeleton at the corresponding identifier of the entity. Note that if I want, then I can add a column of knowledge to unary tables (relations) in contrast to anchor modeling and RM / T. There are many other combinations with the Procedure A, but it is a very broad topic.

The authors of "Anchor modeling" often use the name "immutable entity" and "immutable key" for identifiers of entities from "Procedure A" and thereby hide this scandalous plagiarism of Procedure A.

I do not visit other user group. Recently I visited a group for "Java" language and there I have noticed a huge discussion on "immutable object" that is on my Procedure A. One user asks to explain what it is immutable object, since it can not understand. A large group of users explain it to him. Obviously "Java" has recently received commands for "Immutable objects".
I must say that the user who does not understand, in fact, is the only one who well understands this thing. Those who have explained, they do not understand. In fact, "the immutable object" does not exist. Perhaps there is in philosophy and religion, but in databases, this kind of object does not exist or they are very rare. Here I want to show a little more complicated example of anatomy of plagiarism. The plagiarism of the very important solutions and lack of understanding of plagiarists.

Vladimir Odrljin Received on Tue May 05 2015 - 15:06:33 CEST

Original text of this message